I have been involved in the Yosemite Master Planning process as a member of the public since the 1970's. My personal observation is that every version of a Plan I've seen would make such draconian changes to the way the general public uses the Valley that we end up breathing a sigh of relief that the current, awful, system isn't dismantled even further.

I still await restoration of the campsites stolen from us in the name of prudent flood control in the aftermath of the 1996 Flood. The only changes I've seen since 1976 have generally been to make the Valley and Park increasingly inaccessible to working taxpayers, so that the leisure classes can "enjoy" the park free of working stiffs and their annoying, touron ways.

I couldn't care less about the pools. I'd be bummed if I miss ever ice skating there (tried to make it this year, but the stars didn't align). But dropping bike and horse rentals is simply idiotic. People come to Yosemite from all over, and most don't have the convenience of bringing their own bikes. So they'll be expected to walk or, more likely, DRIVE everywhere under this plan? It's appalling.

Yeah I do not get the focus on bikes. Why would they want to promote the use of cars. Build one big parking lot and everyone needs to walk or bike around the valley. That would be awesome ( minus the big parking lot lol)

The bike removal should be viewed as a 'poison pill' designed to help protect those other activities.

"The bikes??? That's OUTRAGEOUS!!!!"

Nawmean?

That bridge could kill the whole restoration plan too. Those insisting on its removal are being stupidly shortsighted. Or perhaps NO ONE likes the plan anymore and almost everyone wants to see aspects of it fail.

The E ticket ride will be the new " RAPPEL" amusement attraction. If you survive the rafting ride, you can try your hand a a rap down the El Cap. This will attract more of the folks the the Park service wants in our parks!

The rationale for eliminating bicycle rentals is that it is a commercial activity, and National Parks should minimize commercial activities. When I went to my first "Planning Meeting" for the Yosemite Master Plan in the 1970's, I thought I was in a group playing "Animal Farm," except that the mantra was "No commercial development," rather than "Four legs good; Two legs bad."

It's similar to the rationale that changed the number of gas stations in the Valley from three to zero. Whatever else that change may have done, it certainly did not conserve fuel, but that wasn't the issue. Private automobiles were on the "bad" list, so anything that makes them more inconvenient must be "good."

In fairness, the NPS has incompatible instructions: preserve the resource but accommodate the people's recreation. My main objection to the current planning process is that it is upside-down. The Merced River determines the plan, rather than Yosemite Valley. To me, the Merced is not a particularly unique western river, except that it happens to run through the most beautiful valley in the United States. Yosemite Valley, on the other hand, is unique and vitally important in many recreational activities, not just climbing.

It particularly saddens me when I see climbers advocate exclusion of other uses. Sooner or later, other users will turn on us. Already, I can pick out lichen scarring from popular climbing routes much more easily than I can now recognize the scar from the Firefall. How much longer before some group more "wildernessly pious" starts to try to exclude us? We already face the issue with permanent anchors in wilderness areas.

Unless the National Parks remain a refuge for ordinary working people, sooner or later those same people will get tired of supporting them.

Whatever else that change may have done, it certainly did not conserve fuel, but that wasn't the issue. Private automobiles were on the "bad" list, so anything that makes them more inconvenient must be "good."

The point was that the USTs (underground storage tanks) were leaking...which is very common on older USTs.

The groundwater contamination plumes were threatening to infiltrate the river itself. There was (still is?) a groundwater pump-n-treat VOC stripper sitting there in the old C4 gas station area for years?

The relocation of the gas stations out of the Valley was independent of the potential pollution issue -- unless you assume that all underground tanks will leak, in which case I'd like to know why there's gas available at Wawona. The elimination of gas stations in the Valley was part of the "wilderness advocates'" agenda at the very first meeting I attended.

John....i simply have to dispute your comment about the Valley being made more amenable to the "leisure class" by eliminating facilities for the "great unwashed."
Why, middle class folks can book a room in the Awahnee where rooms START at a mere $476 per night. For the truly indigent tent cabins are available in Curry Village for a starting price of only $128 per night.
With values like those, rolling around in a dusty campsite makes no sense at all.

Jim, that's my point. When my family used to camp in the Valley for a couple of weeks each year (because it was the only sort of vacation we could afford), there were well over a thousand sites. After they reduced them in th elate 1960's, there were enough crowding issues than overnight fees were easy to collect during the summer months. Now with the River Campgrounds (or as I like to think of them, Camps 7 and 15) gone since the 1996 Flood, I'm supposed to feel good about this plan because it gives half of those campsites back?

There's no reduction in Ahwahnee romms, Lodge accommodations, or anything else. Just campsites. The liesure class at the upper end of the social spectrum still has all of its facilities. That at the lowest end can still deal with the sorts of hassels whose time precludes participation by those of us who still have full-time jobs with limited vacation.

There was an article in the Fresno Bee a couple of years ago in which the NPS cited reduced camper-nights as evidence that camping demand has declined in the Park. I couldn't believe that anyone would make that argument with a straight face.

In addition to the eliminated Valley sites, the Tenaya Lake walk-in campground, the Glacier Point, Smokey Jack, Tamarack Creek, Harden Lake and probably other car campgrounds that I've forgotten about are all eliminated. Of course the number of camper-nights is lower. There aren't as many campsites! It's those campsites that working stiffs can still afford. It's too bad we need to win a lattery to get one.

Having walked through the campsites recently, I have no intention of ever staying there. Not what I call camping. From the giant Greyhound bus sized motor homes to all manner of contraptions, it just doesn't seem like the type of experience I'm used to. Maybe if I tried it.

Also, there are the many folks who have no clue about how to have a clean campfire and smoke up the whole east end of the valley trying to burn some green wood or something. I hope to make a booklet some day that they could pass out for free to help reduce that problem.

The idea of more car camp sites does not excite me.

I have been enjoying walking through the forest where the old camps were eliminated though. Very nice. Usually I'm the only one there and get great solitude, even when it's busy.

You're spot on John. Reducing # of campsites and then saying that the # of campers is down is a cynical and devious use of flawed statistics. I don't recall anyone citing how easy it was to find a campsite in peak season.
$128 minimum for a sleazy tent cabin in Curry Village is beyond the pale. Pure capitalisim at work....they are getting what they can. The Awahnee is always booked up. This is a National Park for ALL of the people and consideration should be given to those with fewer means.

I really don't give a crap about any of this except elcap meadow. They best not close that thing off.

I camp in the valley anytime I want without reservations. I prefer the car camping in pines and i'm glad to pay for it.. but in a pinch I'll throw my food in the boxes at the Y and put my sleeping bag down in the woods a bit behind them. I know the door codes for the good showers and I'm good to go.

If its gonna rain at night i know where/how to deal with that too.

I love rafting the merced I have my own $30 walmart raft I bring every trip. Its about the most casual relaxing beatiful way to spend a few hours sippin some brewski's on a rest day.

Seems to me the plan should be .. make the place as accessible as possible to all the people who are footing the bill for it.. or shut the whole damn thing down and make everyone hike in.

Oh, yeah... I'm sure there are dozens of DNC executives driving around Buffalo in the Limo's laughing at all the suckers in Curry Village. I'm sure if they charged $25 a night for a tent cabin the service would be just as good.

If you follow along this line of thinking then all the staff should get a really nice paycheck at the same time. We'll get some Greek politicians in there to write the new business plan.

Yosemite return to a more primitive park.

15 north of the Valley, about 10 miles down the Tuolumne River from Lembert Dome, there is a side canyon where no one goes. It's surrounded by high walls that no one climbs. There's a spring and a meadow to camp in all you want for FREE. Totally primitive. You could sit around in a loin cloth and roast meat over a fire. (though I prefer Vienna Sausages) There is a nice cave to live in while it rains too.

Capitalisim is likely the best system we have......as long as it is constrained by sound regulatory institutions.
Also, is it unreasonable to entertain the notion of a saftey net for the millions who thru bad luck or health or, yes, a lack of the talents or the opportunity needed to compete in today's world fall below the poverty line in an insanely rich country. I suppose some think that another 10,000 sq. ft. home in Aspen or another private jet is more important than the well being of other humans.
When is enough, enough.....for many Americans the answer is- never.

The best campgrounds I've ever stayed in were those run on contract by private concession. They have to do a good job to make money and they can get fired for doing a bad job.

Really? The few times I've stayed at private campgrounds they were overpriced and poorly managed. I'd stay at Valley/Tuolumne Sites or Forest Service sites any day of the week over private campgrounds.

Our comments to the current draft of the river plan are due on or before April 18, for those who, like me, feel better having participated in the process, even if we end up with something different from what I want.

As an aside, I think the proper characterization of DNC is monopoly, rather than capitalism. DNC's pricing, service, and overall operation of YNP concessions makes me appreciate the infamous YP&CC. At least when I was little, you could still see Mrs. Curry at the Camp Curry store, and the Degnan's operation was still owned by that family.

Although I have no direct evidence of this, my personal conspiracy theory is that DNC is behind the reduction of camping space, picnic grounds, day-use parking, and anything else that enables one to enjoy the Park without paying the concessionaire. Without DNC's monopoly on concession operations in the Park, together with its political clout, I rather suspect we'd see a different plan. I intend to tell the Park Service my preferences in this regard. While I know the NPS cannot do anything more than read and consider the views of the public, it gives me some self-righteous satisfaction knowing that I at least let them know what I think before they make their final decision.

Eating a meal at the Ahwahnee once reminded me of what people said about visiting the Soviet Union- huge, formerly grand edifice, suffering from neglect; overpriced, bland food; indifferent service...all the hallmarks of a complete lack of competition. Don't like it? You can drive an hour to Mariposa.

My neighbors are arguing like crazy, but you folks are plenty civilized and rational, for climbers.

Aren't we supposed to be smoking weed and acting all dissolute instead of trying to protect the Valley?

Who, exactly, is profiling whom?

The concessionaire has done their profiling homework. They want folks with money to leave it with them. What label we give these greedy MFs is moot, really. They don't live or climb in Yosemite, just suck it's extra blood. Don't kill our golden goose, they say.

The DNC (Doesn't Need Competition) likes folks staying with THEM, not using the outdoor camping/picnicking sites.

The wonderful guys who own stock in DNC WANT the Plan(s) to fail--this means they can keep gouging as many visitors as possible for that much longer.

Sign that letter, please.^^^^^

As for the Ahwahnee, my buddy George and his wife went there for lunch and he looked at the wine list. A bottle there sold for four times the shelf price. He had water instead and prayed really hard. No wine, but he still had his money.